[han]

keylime, on Dec 15 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

I'd make sure that you had a way to make a forcing call after 1H-1S-1NT

I would have expected a unanimous vote for 3NT after that start.

[CSGibson]

han, on Dec 15 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

keylime, on Dec 15 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

I'd make sure that you had a way to make a forcing call after 1H-1S-1NT

I would have expected a unanimous vote for 3NT after that start.

Just to clarify: That's a non-forcing 3N, of course

[MickyB]

Josh, I like the idea of this but I've played it before.

If the auction starts

1H:2C
2H:2N

do you now bid 3S on any hand with four of them? What would you bid on KQx AKxxxx xx xx?

[jdonn]

MickyB, on Dec 15 2008, 09:18 PM, said:

Josh, I like the idea of this but I've played it before.

If the auction starts

1H:2C
2H:2N

do you now bid 3S on any hand with four of them? What would you bid on KQx AKxxxx xx xx?

There are lots of ways to find the spade fit.

Play responder can rebid 2♠ without promising a balanced hand.

Play opener can reverse into spades without showing extras.

Play 3♠ on the auction you present as promising 4 (the obvious bid would be 3♥ btw. Even someone who doesn't respond 2♣ on the problem hand would probably use 3♠ there as showing 4-6.)

Play something artificial, there are many options.

Lose the spade fit when both players are relatively balanced.

I think for a partnership that doesn't want to get particularly involved, the second option is the most appealing. It's very simple, and you can catch up on strength later.

[MickyB]

Obviously, there was meant to be a 'not' in my previous post.

Unfortunately, the second option isn't viable in my methods. I'll give the others some thought - thanks.

[jdonn]

MickyB, on Dec 15 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

Obviously, there was meant to be a 'not' in my previous post.

Unfortunately, the second option isn't viable in my methods. I'll give the others some thought - thanks.

If I can ask, is a 2/1 bid game forcing in your methods?

I would be completely against starting with 2♣ if that bid were not game forcing. The entire point is that you have no need to establish a game force later, so if that element vanishes then it's a whole different ball of wax.

[MickyB]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 04:58 AM, said:

MickyB, on Dec 15 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

Obviously, there was meant to be a 'not' in my previous post.

Unfortunately, the second option isn't viable in my methods. I'll give the others some thought - thanks.

If I can ask, is a 2/1 bid game forcing in your methods?

I would be completely against starting with 2♣ if that bid were not game forcing. The entire point is that you have no need to establish a game force later, so if that element vanishes then it's a whole different ball of wax.

It isn't GF, but responder's 2NT (or 2♠) rebid is.